The Nazi's socialist?

[Navarro]

Which is impossible, given the second law of thermodynamics and entropy.

That would be the First Law.

 

[Deleted member 88]

That would be the First Law.

My physics and cosmology is rudimentary, as you can see. Thank you for the correction.

 

[ShieldWife]

Well, if the plan to make socialism work is to get infinite resources, let’s focus on getting infinite resources first and maybe then we can discuss socialism.

 

[Deleted member 88]

So...pacts with the devil are an option then?

 

[ShieldWife]

So...pacts with the devil are an option then?

Well, the stereotypical bargain with the Devil involves giving up everything by making an agreement with somebody evil who promises you something good but is ultimately just using you. That describes socialism pretty well in practice.

Socialism also appeals to some of the worst aspects of human nature - envy and pride.

 

[Deleted member 88]

So where do we sign the book? Much less summon him. But hey, if ya'll want socialism, I'll hold the Sabbat.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

What are you going to do when they refuse to give up their faith? Confiscating their children so you can brainwash them in Glorious Atheism? Throwing them forcibly into mental institutions for "sluggishly progressing schizophrenia"? Or will you "re-educate" them? Maybe you'll concentrate them in camps?

What will be done? For the most part nothing. They will die off naturally. The only time intervention would and/or should be carried out is in the case of harm such as a parent who attempts to "pray the cancer away" rather than have their child treated by medicine or other such cases of neglect, abuse, or endangerment. If an adult wants to handle snakes or refuse blood transfusions or the like then that is on them and the sooner they award themselves a Darwin Award the better. Parents however hold no right to award their children a Darwin Award.

We know what socialists have done in the past:

If you expect me to defend anything the Soviets did from the instant they started their revolution onward you are barking up the wrong tree. Russia is was and always has been fucked. The belief that socialism could or can be imposed from the top down is fucked.

Your ideology can't even calculate basic resource distribution, since you have no market.

Market socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm sorry you were saying?

No market, no prices,

See above.

and your central planners are stuck groping in the dark while the economy collapses around them.

Planned economy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Socialism is not synonymous with planned economy. Socialism may exist with a planned or unplanned economy. Though I tend towards the belief that planned economies are always a disaster. Just like not all planned economies are socialist economies. If you conflate terms which have distinct meaning you will continue to make yourself look stupid (ie willfully ignorant).

It has never solved any problems except perhaps "how to justify tyranny, mass killing and robbery".

Authoritarianism has never done anything expect justify tyranny, mass killing, and robbery. The error here is that you are conflating Marxist-Leninist's and tankies (which are actually the same thing) with all of socialism. If we grant that socialism can exist within a state (which I have done) then we have two competing schools within socialism. Authoritarian Socialism and Libertarian socialism. To be clear this is not to say that all state socialist societies must of necessity be Authoritarian and that they cannot be Libertarian.

You want to murder and rob everybody who has more money than you do, because you feel slighted that they do. That's a fucking caveman attitude, and you add on top to it an overbearing intellectual pride that imagines yourself as the Grand Coordinator controlling every aspect of our lives because you just know better than us, you grand intellect that imagines an ancient Greek famous for advancing a hypothesis he couldn't prove was the start of "the Left", that there is some providential force in history that guides you to your inevitable victory.

so at this point it is clear that you have not been actually listening to what I have been saying. As to imagining myself as the grand coordinator (again you are not paying attention) what you are referring to is a planned economy. I am a M A R K E T socialist. Market socialism is an unplanned model not a planned model. See Markets not Capitalism. I neither want such a position to exist nor do I believe that anyone is capable of fulfilling such a position.

What will you do when the factory bosses refuse to hand over their life's work and investment to "the people"? When the suburbanites refuse to let their houses be subdivided into apartments for "the workers"? When the farmers who own their own tractors and barns and acres of land refuse to give up their "private property" to the "collective" (meaning the State, meaning the Politburo). We know what that is - we've seen it in Russia, in China, in Cambodia.

As to factory bosses they are welcome to work at the factories which are owned by the people who actually work at the factory. If they attempt to use violence then violence will be returned. As previously stated the "seizure" of property is pro-forma. As to your question of housing I am not sure what you mean. If they are living in the house they own it. Anyone who attempts to move in without their permission would be trespassing. With regards to the farmers who's personal property (ie their tractors, barns, acres of land) belongs to them I would violently oppose a state attempting to seize their personal property.

And yes, you'll find "counter-revolutionaries" once you're in charge, plenty of them. Or if the Great Leader isn't you, you'll find yourself designated as one of them after running foul of him.

I am not insane enough to want to be in charge of anything. As to the idea of a "great leader" you have not been paying attention again. I actively disbelieve in greatman theory. And I distrust anyone and everyone is positions of power and authority. Anyone who claims they are a "Great Leader" or if others proclaim someone a "Great Leader" that individual is to immediately be considered suspect in the extreme. The entire purpose of the market syndicalist agenda is to decentralize the leavers of power and thus limit the damage a self-deluded great man and his delusional followers might do. And FYI the revolutionary is the one who fires first. What we seek ultimately is a bloodless victory. Though I do suspect that your kind will attempt to muster a final violent blow in an attempt of preserving your corrupt system.

Yes, you'll kill a few million people in "self defence" against "reactionaries, kulaks and saboteurs". Then you'll kill a few million more, and then another few million, for as long as your system lasts. Then when it collapses your ideological descendants will say "DirtbagLeftopia wasn't real socialism!".

You do understand that if a law were passed immediately nullifying private property and turning rental properties over to the inhabitants and work places over to the workers the entire political infrastructure being preserved we would live in a socialist society? Personal property would still be preserved intact and in full. I am an anarchist which means I want the decentralization of power not the consolidation of power. get that through your thick skull. You have a narrative you must hold onto. I get it. You have no interest in trying to analyze and critique what is being said. I get it. You love holding onto your strawmen so you can burn them down. I get that as well.

As I've said before, your definition of socialism is a fantasy. The commonplace definition of socialism is that in which it manifests in the real world. Your personal definition is irrelevant, because it can't exist as an actuality in the world.

An argument ad populum is not an argument its a logical fallacy. To hold an opinion one must be qualified to hold an opinion. This does not mean one is required to get a degree in a certain field. It does mean that one must be in passing familiar with the material so as to be able to present it to an individual who does believe it and have them say "yes. That is what I mean when I say X.". In short to hold a qualified opinion one must know both sides and be able to present both sides.

Here I present you with a challenge. Let us reverse roles. You defend socialism and I will attack socialism. Additionally I will take on the added burden of presenting a positive case for capitalism and the preservation of private property. This is a task which I am capable of doing. Are you?

Your "socialism" is a fantasyland designed to lure in idealistic dupes. When we talk about socialism, we talk about socialism as it manifests in the real world. Famines. Genocides. Totalitarian surveillance states. Gulags. Death camps. An economy so centrally mismanaged that the 3% of farms allowed to run by non-socialist principles bring in 25% of the nation's food.

Your capitalism is a fantasy peddled to the unwashed masses to preserve your power and sacrifice millions to your own lust for power. I am talking about capitalism as it has manifested in the real world. Death squads to impose corporate will and compliance. Exploitation of undeveloped regions to line the pockets of million and billionaires. Famine. Genocide. Totalitarian surveillance states. Concentration camps. Death camps. Economies mismanaged for the benefit of a small percentage of people. If Communism Killed Millions, How Many Did Capitalism Kill? Granting for a single moment that any of what you said is true. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

In Russia small farmers who happened to own brick houses and animals had their "private property" - i.e. the means of their livelihood - expropriated to useless collective farms and were viciously massacred by the millions - in "self-defence" against "dangerous reactionaries", no less.

At this point it is getting old repeating myself. So this time do pay attention. If we take your logic and apply it evenly the Democratic Republic of Congo, The Central African Republic, The Republic of Chad, The Republic of Turkmenistan, The Republic of Equatorial Guinea, The Republic of Yemen, The Republic of Uzbekistan, The Peoples Republic of Laos, etc, etc, etc. (I can go on for quite some time) are all manifestations of Democratic Republics. If you believe that I have a bridge I would like to sell you. It's in their name. It's in their founding writings that they are democratic. Nobody believes this. Why does nobody believe this? Because, and say it with me. We construct the definition first, then we see if those things match the definition. And how do we construct the definition? By examining the writings of the political theorists who established the term. We do not go to the masses who know little if anything at all about a subject when we wish to learn about a subject or how terms are understood or used. We go to those who's job it is to use those terms and see how they use them. This is why we know that those countries and hundreds of others some still around some long gone were not Republics. This is how we know that these countries are not democratic.

They were socialists. They said they were building socialism. "Libertarian socialism", to be precise. These are Lenin's literal own words here:

Yes no one in history ever hijacked populist movements to place themselves in positions of power and turn themselves into authoritarian dictators. (See the french evolution, see Cormwell, See Napoleon. Again I can make an exhaustive list that goes back even farther and covers all areas of the globe.) But of course. This problem is a problem which only happens with socialism. Never in the entire history of the world when new economic or political orders are attempting to be brought about does this happen. They of course come perfectly into being just like Athena on the first try.

Note especially the references to "the people as a whole", "the majority of the wage slaves of yesterday", "the people", "the whole of the population", "the mass of population", "the majority itself", "the workers", etc.

Yes all pretty words. Politicians are famous for pretty words. They never never lie. They never ever say a whole lot of nothing, or things which are the opposite of what they mean or do. Never. It doesn't happen.

You should have watched it far longer. You would have learned about the Nazi price controls, wage controls, attempts at collectivisation of agriculture, State take-over of industries, etc. But that isn't "socialism" to you. Because "socialism" is your eschatonic fantasyland where the oceans are lemonade and the sky rains free food and no-one ever has to work unless they want to. Your con is pretty old, you know?

wrong! I watched the whole thing. All tedious four hours of it. The fact that you think price and wage controls (a planned economy) is somehow a unique feature of socialism and does not exist within Capitalism or other systems shows your level of ignorance. Again planned economies (which I oppose) can be a feature of any system just as any system can lack it as a feature.). You are in desperate need of an introduction to politic science course. There are many online for free. Perhaps you should look into them.

Ah, so obsessed with your supposed intellectual supremacy. So much of a big brain you think that Aristarchus was anything more than a footnote in history, and that Christianity was responsible for the evils of the anti-Christian USSR.

Yes Aristarchus the man who discovered the earth was not the center of the universe, who discovered the sun was a burning ball, who put the planets in their correct order and distances. In other words the man who discovered modern cosmology before modern cosmology is a fucking footnote! The man who invented modern science before modern science was a thing was a fucking footnote! And why? So that mystic peddlers could continue to peddle their mysticism. And yes. Christianity was responsible for the evil's of anti-christian USSR. Do you know anything about the history of the Russian Orthodox Church or it's role in reinforcing the rule of brutal Tzars and Tzarinas? Are you aware of how Rasputin contributed to the unrest in Russia? Are you aware of Konstantin Pobedonotsev and the brutality which he advocated for against the peasants? Nothing can justify the actions of the USSR. Nothing. It was autocratic, despotic, authoritarian and disgusting. The abuses of the Russian Orthodox Church were returned to it. Does this mean it was right? Absolutely not. It wasn't. Was Christianity responsible for the anti-Christianity of the USSR. Learn your fucking history. You bet your ass it was.

Let's get something very clear. And this is a matter of historic fact. The peasants were property. Legally they were slaves by another name. I don't mean they were wage slaves either. What happened in Russia was predictable. Slave rebellions are always nasty affairs. always. And even when the slaves win they loose. In history I am aware of only one case where slaves were able to mount a successful rebellion against slave owners and were able to establish a working functioning government. With rare exception slaves are uneducated and are incapable due to ignorance (not lack of ability) to establishing a working functional government and the civil institutions necessary for a functioning society. What happened in Russia was exactly what anyone who knows anything about slave revolts could have predicted.

Returning to Aristarchus because your flippancy is not only disgusting but demonstrates exactly the problem with reactionaries. The fact that you think the person who discovered what was more or less modern cosmology without the benefit of even so much as a telescope and that he is remembered only as a footnote is a stain on human history. You want an entertaining read? Read Novus Organum. Christianity is a stain on history, it has always fought progress, it is a death cult, what we have today we have not because of but in spite of Christianity.

How many millions - or billions - have to die in pursuit of Never-Neverland before you lot give up? And no, you don't learn. Your socialist utopias always fail in the same way - in dictatorship, in starvation, in mass deaths. It always begins with promises of freedom and prosperity, and always ends with a Great Leader ordering mass executions, living in a gilded mansion while the starving poor suffer and die.

Instead of repeating everything I have already said allow me to just sum up the above with this. Your speaking out your ass again.

There are an infinitely higher number of prosperous, peaceful democratic states than there are of socialist states meeting those criteria.

Check your numbers buster. I have.

And the same things keep happening. Great Leaders keep rising up. The people keep starving. State-controlled industries stagnate, then collapse. There are gulags. There are secret police. Lots of people die. And then when the sorry mess is over, and what was previously touted as the new Great Socialist Experiment is indefensible, socialists like you say it wasn't real socialism.

And there were and are capitalist gulags. It's a good thing I oppose gulags. I am going to tell you what the most pathetic part is. The most pathetic part is that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are as bad as someone who rails against the bible and yet has never red a page and thinks that they are somehow qualified to give an opinion because they have heard third hand what others have to say. At least if I am going to criticize something I go to the source before I start doing so.

You never learn. When socialism fails, it's never Real Socialism, because Real Socialism cannot exist in the real world - the world populated by fallible, corrupt humans, where resources are finite and where the central planners will never have access to the information they need to steer the economy.

Are humans fallible? yes. Are they corrupt? No. That is your disgusting Christian philosophy rearing its head. Are humans corruptible? Yes. Which is why I do not trust lots of power in the hands of a few. Better to dilute power and its temptation as much as possible. It is rather comical however that on the one hand you put forward the proposition that humans are corrupt, and on the other that a system which perpetuates power in the hands of a few is a great system. And again. Central planning which I and the majority of socialists are opposed to is not an inherent feature of Socialism. What you are speaking of is an inherent feature of Marxism which is only one version of socialism. It is why Marxism has failed and always will fail. Even without a state Central planning is a bad idea.


Now lets me put forward two simple questions which I suspect you are incapable of answering.
1) Even disagreeing with it are you capable of putting forward the arguments for the other side?
and the more important of the two.
2) Is Central planning an inherent feature of socialism?

Well, the stereotypical bargain with the Devil involves giving up everything by making an agreement with somebody evil who promises you something good but is ultimately just using you. That describes socialism pretty well in practice.

Socialism also appeals to some of the worst aspects of human nature - envy and pride.

I have red the bible. The devil is the good guy. Yahweh is the genocidal authoritarian psychopath.

 

[ShieldWife]

I have red the bible. The devil is the good guy. Yahweh is the genocidal authoritarian psychopath.

How is the Devil the good guy in the Bible? He’s barely even in it. The only personality that the Devil shows in the Bible is when he destroys the life of an innocent man, Job. Are you imagining the Devil as some kind of rebellious anti-hero? That’s not the Bible, maybe you’re thinking of Paradise Lost or Demon: the Fallen.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

@DirtbagLeft, if possible I'd like to see your actual quotes as well as the dates those men said that their countries were not socialist. First to quell the perception that people say they're making socialism, and then that it wasn't true socialism afterwards when it didn't work, and to help people see that it's not some out-of-context editing simply because it flies in the face of "common knowledge," which can sometimes be wrong.

Sure. Something to consider are the three schools of Bolsheviki thought namely that of Lenin and Trotsky and then the school of Stalin. Trotsky though extremely bloody minded in his approach advocated for an immediate bottom up approach in a Federated form of socialism. Stalin on the other hand both bloody minded and paranoid advocated for a isolationist form of socialism from the top down. Lenin was somewhere between the two and while less bloody minded and less insane than both Trotsky and Stalin (that is not to say he was not bloody minded or insane only less so). For Trotsky's view see "The revolution Betrayed" and The Criticism of the Draft Program of the Comintern.
I refer those interested to Draft Programme RCP Draft Programme of the R.C.P.(B.) Which outlines the 1919 end goals of the USSR.

The more direct influence of the working masses on state structure and administration—i.e., a higher form of democracy—is also effected under the Soviet type of state, first, by the electoral procedure and the possibility of holding elections more frequently, and also by conditions for re-election and for the recall of deputies which are simpler and more comprehensible to the urban and rural workers than is the case under the best forms of bourgeois democracy;

I think we can all agree no such program was put in place

In Russia today the basic tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat are to carry through to the end, to complete, the expropriation of the landowners and bourgeoisie that has already begun, and the transfer of all factories, railways, banks, the merchant fleet and other means of production and exchange to ownership by the Soviet Republic;

For the view current of the structure of the Soviet Republic at the time of its writing see Trotskism.

secondly, by making the economic, industrial unit (factory) and not a territorial division the primary electoral unit and the nucleus of the state structure under Soviet power. This closer contact between the state apparatus and the masses of advanced proletarians that capitalism has united, in addition to effecting a higher level of democracy, also makes it possible to effect profound socialist reforms.

again I think we can all agree that the Soviets failed to live up to this.

No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, had denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognized as a socialist order.

From "Left-Wing Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality" by Lenin. Unambiguously Lenin is saying that Socialist Soviet Republic refers to the intent to achieve but not the actual achievement of socialism, ie the ownership of the means of production by the workers.

I will find more but I can only stomach so much Russian communist literature at a given time. I don't keep these quotes on hand because frankly I am not a tankie or an ML and I don't usually have this conversation. I find Right Socialism (as opposed to Left Socialism) to be a blight and draining on the soul.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Sure. Something to consider are the three schools of Bolsheviki thought namely that of Lenin and Trotsky and then the school of Stalin. Trotsky though extremely bloody minded in his approach advocated for an immediate bottom up approach in a Federated form of socialism. Stalin on the other hand both bloody minded and paranoid advocated for a isolationist form of socialism from the top down. Lenin was somewhere between the two and while less bloody minded and less insane than both Trotsky and Stalin (that is not to say he was not bloody minded or insane only less so). For Trotsky's view see "The revolution Betrayed" and The Criticism of the Draft Program of the Comintern.
I refer those interested to Draft Programme RCP Draft Programme of the R.C.P.(B.) Which outlines the 1919 end goals of the USSR.
I think we can all agree no such program was put in place
For the view current of the structure of the Soviet Republic at the time of its writing see Trotskism.
again I think we can all agree that the Soviets failed to live up to this.

No no, nothing to consider, no changing the subject to programs. Show me the quotes and when they were said by the leaders of major socialist countries in which they stated their nations were not socialist.

 

[Navarro]

What will be done? For the most part nothing. They will die off naturally. The only time intervention would and/or should be carried out is in the case of harm such as a parent who attempts to "pray the cancer away" rather than have their child treated by medicine or other such cases of neglect, abuse, or endangerment. If an adult wants to handle snakes or refuse blood transfusions or the like then that is on them and the sooner they award themselves a Darwin Award the better. Parents however hold no right to award their children a Darwin Award.

That was what Marx thought too, and what the Soviets thought. Then it didn't happen, so they tried to force it. Socialists have always oppressed the religious in the most brutal and vile ways whenever they have taken power.

Russia is was and always has been fucked.

The same things have happened in China, in Germany, in Cambodia, in Cuba, in Korea and in Africa. There is nothing particularly bad about Russians that drives them towards dictatorship that is not also found in any human on Earth. Or are you racist against them?

The belief that socialism could or can be imposed from the top down is fucked.

There is no other way it can be imposed.

Market socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm sorry you were saying?

Cuba, Belarus, Yugoslavia and Ethiopia. Still horrible dictatorships with awful human rights abuses. Why am I supposed to be enthused?

Planned economy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Socialism is not synonymous with planned economy. Socialism may exist with a planned or unplanned economy. Though I tend towards the belief that planned economies are always a disaster. Just like not all planned economies are socialist economies. If you conflate terms which have distinct meaning you will continue to make yourself look stupid (ie willfully ignorant).

You will need planners, because you will not be able to spontaneously self organise above the level of about 150 people. Unless you reduce the human population to that amount, I guess ...

Authoritarianism has never done anything expect justify tyranny, mass killing, and robbery. The error here is that you are conflating Marxist-Leninist's and tankies (which are actually the same thing) with all of socialism. If we grant that socialism can exist within a state (which I have done) then we have two competing schools within socialism. Authoritarian Socialism and Libertarian socialism. To be clear this is not to say that all state socialist societies must of necessity be Authoritarian and that they cannot be Libertarian.

Socialism is "libertarian" unless it finds itself in power, at which point the jackboots come out. If it gets prevented from taking power, it remains pure and unsullied "libertarian socialism", unspoiled by having to successfully manifest in reality.

so at this point it is clear that you have not been actually listening to what I have been saying. As to imagining myself as the grand coordinator (again you are not paying attention) what you are referring to is a planned economy. I am a M A R K E T socialist. Market socialism is an unplanned model not a planned model. See Markets not Capitalism. I neither want such a position to exist nor do I believe that anyone is capable of fulfilling such a position.

Even "market socialist" countries are brutally repressive dictatorships, as I noted. And if you try to bring up Norway, let me tell you that they simply have a large welfare system which is only sustainable thanks to oil money. Same as in the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. I guess if that's your definition of "market socialism", they count too?

As to factory bosses they are welcome to work at the factories which are owned by the people who actually work at the factory. If they attempt to use violence then violence will be returned.

This has never happened in any actual socialist country. Their wealth (which they gained by providing products people were willing to buy) was expropriated and they were murdered if they didn't flee the country fast enough. Also, the sheer wastefulness of your statement galls. Make Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Elon Musk work on the factory floor! Surely they don't have any qualities that "the workers" don't possess.

As to your question of housing I am not sure what you mean. If they are living in the house they own it. Anyone who attempts to move in without their permission would be trespassing.

In the Soviet Union, houses of "the bourgeois" were confiscated and divvied up among "the workers" as apartments. Because it was deemed to be "private property", not "personal". The judgement in practice has always turned out to be arbitrary.

With regards to the farmers who's personal property (ie their tractors, barns, acres of land) belongs to them I would violently oppose a state attempting to seize their personal property.

Again, this has never happened. Instead in socialist countries the farmers were forcibly made to work on collective farms and their property expropriated. They were murdered if they resisted. Because "personal property" is simply a socialist term for "property we don't intend to confiscate (right now)" and nothing more, in practice.

I am not insane enough to want to be in charge of anything.

Doubtful.

As to the idea of a "great leader" you have not been paying attention again. I actively disbelieve in greatman theory. And I distrust anyone and everyone is positions of power and authority. Anyone who claims they are a "Great Leader" or if others proclaim someone a "Great Leader" that individual is to immediately be considered suspect in the extreme.

You will have one, or perhaps a politburo. You won't have a self-organising society above the number of about 150 people, because full human empathy doesn't extend beyond that level.

And FYI the revolutionary is the one who fires first. What we seek ultimately is a bloodless victory. Though I do suspect that your kind will attempt to muster a final violent blow in an attempt of preserving your corrupt system.

Yes, if your socialist movement ever takes power I'm certain it'll "discover" a "terrifying reactionary conspiracy" that needs to be quickly and ruthlessly dealt with "in self-defence". Maybe even you personally will be "discovered" to be one of the plotters. Who knows?

And socialists have never taken power bloodlessly. Even when they're elected they inevitably start to rule arbitrarily, culminating in totalitarianism - some quicker than others.

You do understand that if a law were passed immediately nullifying private property and turning rental properties over to the inhabitants and work places over to the workers the entire political infrastructure being preserved we would live in a socialist society?

"The workers" would be unable to collectively, non-hierarchically self-organise unless there were less than 150 of them. And it's ironic that you talk about people taking control of their own homes, when it has been the Right which has worked out initiatives for such - not through expropriation, but the market.

Personal property would still be preserved intact and in full.

So anybody who saves money and buys something that the village elders or w/e decide isn't "personal property" gets it confiscated. That's not very libertarian of you. The "market" in your "market socialism" is a joke.

I am an anarchist which means I want the decentralization of power not the consolidation of power. get that through your thick skull.

An anarkiddy. I talked with one before, and she was literally unable to explain how an anarchist society could produce something so simple and fundamental to modern society as high-quality steel (that was tried in China, and produced nothing but useless pig iron and deaths by starvation).

You have even less success than the Marxists - at least they got to actually implementing their program. You merely carried out a spree of ineffectual, pointless murders that included a US President and the 19th Century Princess Diana, among various other crimes. Then when civil society collapsed in Russia and Spain you saw a chance to implement your ideology and promptly folded like a wet balloon.

An argument ad populum is not an argument its a logical fallacy. To hold an opinion one must be qualified to hold an opinion. This does not mean one is required to get a degree in a certain field. It does mean that one must be in passing familiar with the material so as to be able to present it to an individual who does believe it and have them say "yes. That is what I mean when I say X.".

If "theoretical socialism" cannot exist in the real world it is functionally irrelevant in a real-world political context, because it will never actually exist outside of theoreticians' heads. That is and always has been my contention.

Your capitalism is a fantasy peddled to the unwashed masses to preserve your power and sacrifice millions to your own lust for power. I am talking about capitalism as it has manifested in the real world. Death squads to impose corporate will and compliance. Exploitation of undeveloped regions to line the pockets of million and billionaires. Famine. Genocide. Totalitarian surveillance states. Concentration camps. Death camps. Economies mismanaged for the benefit of a small percentage of people.

Yay, you can copy-paste a statement made by me and switch some terms around. You are so smart!

If we take your logic and apply it evenly the Democratic Republic of Congo, The Central African Republic, The Republic of Chad, The Republic of Turkmenistan, The Republic of Equatorial Guinea, The Republic of Yemen, The Republic of Uzbekistan, The Peoples Republic of Laos, etc, etc, etc. (I can go on for quite some time) are all manifestations of Democratic Republics. If you believe that I have a bridge I would like to sell you. It's in their name. It's in their founding writings that they are democratic. Nobody believes this. Why does nobody believe this? Because, and say it with me.

We can recognise that these are not functional democracies because functional democracies exist in the world to compare them to. If not for the existence of those countries, it could well equally be argued that democracy could only exist in the heads of theoreticians. Where are the functional socialist societies which we can compare the supposed "fake socialist" societies to?

We construct the definition first, then we see if those things match the definition. And how do we construct the definition? By examining the writings of the political theorists who established the term. We do not go to the masses who know little if anything at all about a subject when we wish to learn about a subject or how terms are understood or used. We go to those who's job it is to use those terms and see how they use them.

As noted by others, you are simply taking the position that you will only admit defeat if your own literature disagrees with you.

Yes no one in history ever hijacked populist movements to place themselves in positions of power and turn themselves into authoritarian dictators. (See the french evolution, see Cormwell, See Napoleon. Again I can make an exhaustive list that goes back even farther and covers all areas of the globe.) But of course.

And why do "authoritarians" keep finding themselves at the heads of socialist movements that actually take power? If there were one or two socialist revolutions that went bad, I might be willing to call it a fluke. But all of them thus far have, and all in exactly the same ways. That indicates a core problem with the ideology itself.

This problem is a problem which only happens with socialism. Never in the entire history of the world when new economic or political orders are attempting to be brought about does this happen. They of course come perfectly into being just like Athena on the first try.

If this was true we would have seen the first successful "real socialist" movement in the late 1800s. Actually, going on from your claim that "socialism" has existed for more than 2,000 years, we would have already been living in "real socialism" for centuries.

Yes all pretty words. Politicians are famous for pretty words. They never never lie. They never ever say a whole lot of nothing, or things which are the opposite of what they mean or do. Never. It doesn't happen.

They all say the same things. It all ends the same way. What part of this are you not getting?

Yes Aristarchus the man who discovered the earth was not the center of the universe, who discovered the sun was a burning ball, who put the planets in their correct order and distances. In other words the man who discovered modern cosmology before modern cosmology is a fucking footnote!

He did not discover anything. Like many Ancient Greek philosophers, he made wild speculations about the nature of the cosmos. His guesses, unlike those of the guy who claimed water was the primordial substance from which all others derived, turned out to be accidentally right. In addition, he didn't determine the "correct order and distances" of the planets, because he vastly lowballed the distance of the Sun from Earth, putting it at 18 to 20 times that of the Moon to the Earth.

The man who invented modern science before modern science was a thing was a fucking footnote!

He did not invent modern science. He made no experiments to test his hypotheses. He made no efforts to demonstrate proof of his claims. Unless you're saying the scientific method isn't fundamental to modern science?

And why? So that mystic peddlers could continue to peddle their mysticism.

He was not suppressed by religious authorities, and neither were his writings. A barbarian horde or two came rolling in and destroyed Classical civilisation, and despite the efforts of Christian monks to preserve as much as they could (who you are indebted to for even knowing Aristarchus' name, BTW) the vast majority of its literature was lost.

Let's get something very clear. And this is a matter of historic fact. he peasants were property. Legally they were slaves by another name. I don't mean they were wage slaves either. What happened in Russia was predictable. Slave rebellions are always nasty affairs. always. And even when the slaves win they loose. In history I am aware of only one case where slaves were able to mount a successful rebellion against slave owners and were able to establish a working functioning government. With rare exception slaves are uneducated and are incapable due to ignorance (not lack of ability) to establishing a working functional government and the civil institutions necessary for a functioning society. What happened in Russia was exactly what anyone who knows anything about slave revolts could have predicted.

Serfdom had been gone for over half a century at that point. Moreover, the Tsar was not in power. The Bolsheviks overthrew a democratic Republican government. These are basic historical facts.

Returning to Aristarchus because your flippancy is not only disgusting but demonstrates exactly the problem with reactionaries. The fact that you think the person who discovered what was more or less modern cosmology without the benefit of even so much as a telescope and that he is remembered only as a footnote is a stain on human history.

He discovered nothing in the scientific sense, because he made no effort to empirically test his hypotheses. His cosmology is not even modern - post-Einsteinian cosmology rejects the notion of a "centre" to the universe altogether.

Read Novus Organum.

Written by a devout follower of the Anglican church. If anything, it's more proof for the thesis I'm about to state.

Christianity is a stain on history, it has always fought progress, it is a death cult, what we have today we have not because of but in spite of Christianity.

The science that you love is founded in Christianity's vision of a God who made a world that worked according to natural laws. The socialism you profess as a political ideology is founded in a distorted form of Christianity's call to human spiritual equality, urges to charity, and vision of Paradise regained after the end of the world. Without Christianity you have nothing, not even a target for your hatred.

Are humans fallible? yes. Are they corrupt? No. That is your disgusting Christian philosophy rearing its head. Are humans corruptible? Yes.

It doesn't take Christianity to realise that humans have innate antisocial impulses that must be tempered and that we're not blank slates. Piaget discovered that each child starts out believing that they are the centre of the world and it literally ceases to exist when they close their eyes. Michael Dunbar discovered that the maximum size a society can reach before it hits the point where everybody no longer knows each other is about 150 people living close together.

Above that size, groups cannot keep themselves in check because full empathy doesn't exist between the members of that group. So, in essence a "libertarian socialist" society can exist at the level of a small Medieval village - and small Medieval villages did indeed maintain a communalist lifestyle quite successfully for many centuries. But they also can't really do anything other than subsistence farming.

So, say you link ten thousand of these villages up, to do things like make industrial-grade steel and modern medicine. Sounds simple, right? But now you have a society of one and a half million people. Full empathy doesn't exist among the members of the group anymore. You start to get conflicts between the villages, over things like water or grazing rights. Rivalries flare up over ingroup/outgroup issues, because you can't stretch people's full empathy to cover one and a half million people. So to avoid collapse you need to have a level above the villages that co-ordinates them and settles disputes. And to do this properly (because the disputes are getting violent) they need to have a group of immediate subordinates who are armed and willing to use those weapons. You now have a leadership caste backed by a paramilitary internal security force, i.e. an authoritarian state structure. You are no longer a "libertarian socialist".

Which is why I do not trust lots of power in the hands of a few. Better to dilute power and its temptation as much as possible.

Since when has socialism ever done anything but give power to the few?

It is rather comical however that on the one hand you put forward the proposition that humans are corrupt, and on the other that a system which perpetuates power in the hands of a few is a great system.

We conservatives do not believe that human evil and selfishness can be eliminated entirely. Hence we move to create systems which can restrain that evil and channel some of our negative impulses towards socially productive goals. So we created a system in which you can get material benefits by providing things that other people want. It's not perfect, but it's worked out pretty well so far. Better than can be said for socialism.

Central planning which I and the majority of socialists are opposed to is not an inherent feature of Socialism. What you are speaking of is an inherent feature of Marxism which is only one version of socialism. It is why Marxism has failed and always will fail. Even without a state Central planning is a bad idea.

You will have central planning unless your grand new socialist society is 150 people or less.

I have red the bible. The devil is the good guy. Yahweh is the genocidal authoritarian psychopath.

God:
>Creates the universe and everybody in it.
>One of His creations becomes convinced that he can overthrow God, becomes evil.
>Said evil creation corrupts God's other creations to also become evil.
>To solve this and make his corrupted creations not-evil so they can enjoy a proper relationship with Him, God becomes a human and suffers a humiliating death, all so humans can share in His infinite life and beauty and joy. Because broken and corrupted as humans are, He still loves them.
"Genocidal authoritarian psychopath!" (according to you)
The devil:
>Created by God as his hallmark creation, like Walt Disney creating Mickey Mouse.
>Becomes irrationally convinced he can totally overthrow God, like Mickey Mouse trying to overthrow Walt Disney.
>Willingly separates himself from the Source of all good, beauty, truth and life, God.
>Loses to God's angels (like Mickey Mouse's rebellion being stopped by Goofy and Donald Duck), corrupts God's other creations into turning evil out of spite after losing by tricking them into separating themselves from God.
"The good guy!" (According to you).

 

[Duke Nukem]

What will be done? For the most part nothing. They will die off naturally. The only time intervention would and/or should be carried out is in the case of harm such as a parent who attempts to "pray the cancer away" rather than have their child treated by medicine or other such cases of neglect, abuse, or endangerment. If an adult wants to handle snakes or refuse blood transfusions or the like then that is on them and the sooner they award themselves a Darwin Award the better. Parents however hold no right to award their children a Darwin Award.

If you expect me to defend anything the Soviets did from the instant they started their revolution onward you are barking up the wrong tree. Russia is was and always has been fucked. The belief that socialism could or can be imposed from the top down is fucked.

Market socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm sorry you were saying?

See above.

Planned economy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Socialism is not synonymous with planned economy. Socialism may exist with a planned or unplanned economy. Though I tend towards the belief that planned economies are always a disaster. Just like not all planned economies are socialist economies. If you conflate terms which have distinct meaning you will continue to make yourself look stupid (ie willfully ignorant).
Authoritarianism has never done anything expect justify tyranny, mass killing, and robbery. The error here is that you are conflating Marxist-Leninist's and tankies (which are actually the same thing) with all of socialism. If we grant that socialism can exist within a state (which I have done) then we have two competing schools within socialism. Authoritarian Socialism and Libertarian socialism. To be clear this is not to say that all state socialist societies must of necessity be Authoritarian and that they cannot be Libertarian.

so at this point it is clear that you have not been actually listening to what I have been saying. As to imagining myself as the grand coordinator (again you are not paying attention) what you are referring to is a planned economy. I am a M A R K E T socialist. Market socialism is an unplanned model not a planned model. See Markets not Capitalism. I neither want such a position to exist nor do I believe that anyone is capable of fulfilling such a position.

As to factory bosses they are welcome to work at the factories which are owned by the people who actually work at the factory. If they attempt to use violence then violence will be returned. As previously stated the "seizure" of property is pro-forma. As to your question of housing I am not sure what you mean. If they are living in the house they own it. Anyone who attempts to move in without their permission would be trespassing. With regards to the farmers who's personal property (ie their tractors, barns, acres of land) belongs to them I would violently oppose a state attempting to seize their personal property.

I am not insane enough to want to be in charge of anything. As to the idea of a "great leader" you have not been paying attention again. I actively disbelieve in greatman theory. And I distrust anyone and everyone is positions of power and authority. Anyone who claims they are a "Great Leader" or if others proclaim someone a "Great Leader" that individual is to immediately be considered suspect in the extreme. The entire purpose of the market syndicalist agenda is to decentralize the leavers of power and thus limit the damage a self-deluded great man and his delusional followers might do. And FYI the revolutionary is the one who fires first. What we seek ultimately is a bloodless victory. Though I do suspect that your kind will attempt to muster a final violent blow in an attempt of preserving your corrupt system.

You do understand that if a law were passed immediately nullifying private property and turning rental properties over to the inhabitants and work places over to the workers the entire political infrastructure being preserved we would live in a socialist society? Personal property would still be preserved intact and in full. I am an anarchist which means I want the decentralization of power not the consolidation of power. get that through your thick skull. You have a narrative you must hold onto. I get it. You have no interest in trying to analyze and critique what is being said. I get it. You love holding onto your strawmen so you can burn them down. I get that as well.

An argument ad populum is not an argument its a logical fallacy. To hold an opinion one must be qualified to hold an opinion. This does not mean one is required to get a degree in a certain field. It does mean that one must be in passing familiar with the material so as to be able to present it to an individual who does believe it and have them say "yes. That is what I mean when I say X.". In short to hold a qualified opinion one must know both sides and be able to present both sides.

Here I present you with a challenge. Let us reverse roles. You defend socialism and I will attack socialism. Additionally I will take on the added burden of presenting a positive case for capitalism and the preservation of private property. This is a task which I am capable of doing. Are you?

Your capitalism is a fantasy peddled to the unwashed masses to preserve your power and sacrifice millions to your own lust for power. I am talking about capitalism as it has manifested in the real world. Death squads to impose corporate will and compliance. Exploitation of undeveloped regions to line the pockets of million and billionaires. Famine. Genocide. Totalitarian surveillance states. Concentration camps. Death camps. Economies mismanaged for the benefit of a small percentage of people. If Communism Killed Millions, How Many Did Capitalism Kill? Granting for a single moment that any of what you said is true. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.



At this point it is getting old repeating myself. So this time do pay attention. If we take your logic and apply it evenly the Democratic Republic of Congo, The Central African Republic, The Republic of Chad, The Republic of Turkmenistan, The Republic of Equatorial Guinea, The Republic of Yemen, The Republic of Uzbekistan, The Peoples Republic of Laos, etc, etc, etc. (I can go on for quite some time) are all manifestations of Democratic Republics. If you believe that I have a bridge I would like to sell you. It's in their name. It's in their founding writings that they are democratic. Nobody believes this. Why does nobody believe this? Because, and say it with me. We construct the definition first, then we see if those things match the definition. And how do we construct the definition? By examining the writings of the political theorists who established the term. We do not go to the masses who know little if anything at all about a subject when we wish to learn about a subject or how terms are understood or used. We go to those who's job it is to use those terms and see how they use them. This is why we know that those countries and hundreds of others some still around some long gone were not Republics. This is how we know that these countries are not democratic.

Yes no one in history ever hijacked populist movements to place themselves in positions of power and turn themselves into authoritarian dictators. (See the french evolution, see Cormwell, See Napoleon. Again I can make an exhaustive list that goes back even farther and covers all areas of the globe.) But of course. This problem is a problem which only happens with socialism. Never in the entire history of the world when new economic or political orders are attempting to be brought about does this happen. They of course come perfectly into being just like Athena on the first try.

Yes all pretty words. Politicians are famous for pretty words. They never never lie. They never ever say a whole lot of nothing, or things which are the opposite of what they mean or do. Never. It doesn't happen.


wrong! I watched the whole thing. All tedious four hours of it. The fact that you think price and wage controls (a planned economy) is somehow a unique feature of socialism and does not exist within Capitalism or other systems shows your level of ignorance. Again planned economies (which I oppose) can be a feature of any system just as any system can lack it as a feature.). You are in desperate need of an introduction to politic science course. There are many online for free. Perhaps you should look into them.



Yes Aristarchus the man who discovered the earth was not the center of the universe, who discovered the sun was a burning ball, who put the planets in their correct order and distances. In other words the man who discovered modern cosmology before modern cosmology is a fucking footnote! The man who invented modern science before modern science was a thing was a fucking footnote! And why? So that mystic peddlers could continue to peddle their mysticism. And yes. Christianity was responsible for the evil's of anti-christian USSR. Do you know anything about the history of the Russian Orthodox Church or it's role in reinforcing the rule of brutal Tzars and Tzarinas? Are you aware of how Rasputin contributed to the unrest in Russia? Are you aware of Konstantin Pobedonotsev and the brutality which he advocated for against the peasants? Nothing can justify the actions of the USSR. Nothing. It was autocratic, despotic, authoritarian and disgusting. The abuses of the Russian Orthodox Church were returned to it. Does this mean it was right? Absolutely not. It wasn't. Was Christianity responsible for the anti-Christianity of the USSR. Learn your fucking history. You bet your ass it was.

Let's get something very clear. And this is a matter of historic fact. The peasants were property. Legally they were slaves by another name. I don't mean they were wage slaves either. What happened in Russia was predictable. Slave rebellions are always nasty affairs. always. And even when the slaves win they loose. In history I am aware of only one case where slaves were able to mount a successful rebellion against slave owners and were able to establish a working functioning government. With rare exception slaves are uneducated and are incapable due to ignorance (not lack of ability) to establishing a working functional government and the civil institutions necessary for a functioning society. What happened in Russia was exactly what anyone who knows anything about slave revolts could have predicted.

Returning to Aristarchus because your flippancy is not only disgusting but demonstrates exactly the problem with reactionaries. The fact that you think the person who discovered what was more or less modern cosmology without the benefit of even so much as a telescope and that he is remembered only as a footnote is a stain on human history. You want an entertaining read? Read Novus Organum. Christianity is a stain on history, it has always fought progress, it is a death cult, what we have today we have not because of but in spite of Christianity.



Instead of repeating everything I have already said allow me to just sum up the above with this. Your speaking out your ass again.



Check your numbers buster. I have.

And there were and are capitalist gulags. It's a good thing I oppose gulags. I am going to tell you what the most pathetic part is. The most pathetic part is that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are as bad as someone who rails against the bible and yet has never red a page and thinks that they are somehow qualified to give an opinion because they have heard third hand what others have to say. At least if I am going to criticize something I go to the source before I start doing so.


Are humans fallible? yes. Are they corrupt? No. That is your disgusting Christian philosophy rearing its head. Are humans corruptible? Yes. Which is why I do not trust lots of power in the hands of a few. Better to dilute power and its temptation as much as possible. It is rather comical however that on the one hand you put forward the proposition that humans are corrupt, and on the other that a system which perpetuates power in the hands of a few is a great system. And again. Central planning which I and the majority of socialists are opposed to is not an inherent feature of Socialism. What you are speaking of is an inherent feature of Marxism which is only one version of socialism. It is why Marxism has failed and always will fail. Even without a state Central planning is a bad idea.


Now lets me put forward two simple questions which I suspect you are incapable of answering.
1) Even disagreeing with it are you capable of putting forward the arguments for the other side?
and the more important of the two.
2) Is Central planning an inherent feature of socialism?


I have red the bible. The devil is the good guy. Yahweh is the genocidal authoritarian psychopath.

Why people still scared of Russia? They're not even that bad now, nor are they still Communist

 

[Senor Hortler]

Why people still scared of Russia? They're not even that bad now, nor are they still Communist

The Cold War was relatively recent; also they sometimes throw their weight around in the Balkans. Russia's fine, and really we should make efforts in Europe to reach more to Russia and help them grow further.

 

[ShieldWife]

Putin isn’t on board with the neo-liberal plan, so the DC establishment doesn’t like him. They also needed to villainize Trump by pretending he was a traitor, so making Putin a boogeyman while tying him to Trump kills two birds with one stone.

Russia is no threat to us at all, especially when you consider some nations that actually do influence our politics.

 

[FriedCFour]

Russia is no threat to us at all, especially when you consider some nations that actually do influence our politics.

They have a GDP equal to Texas. They are ridiculously overplayed.

 

[Navarro]

They have a GDP equal to Texas. They are ridiculously overplayed.

Compared to other countries, it's about the size of Italy.

 

[Zachowon]

Putin isn’t on board with the neo-liberal plan, so the DC establishment doesn’t like him. They also needed to villainize Trump by pretending he was a traitor, so making Putin a boogeyman while tying him to Trump kills two birds with one stone.

Russia is no threat to us at all, especially when you consider some nations that actually do influence our politics.

They have a GDP equal to Texas. They are ridiculously overplayed.

Economically they are not, politically they are when they use Military power to push the ideals

Really only two countries are a threat to the us and that is purely thro8gh military for one and economically for the other.
Politically nonone can

 

[DirtbagLeft]

How is the Devil the good guy in the Bible? He’s barely even in it. The only personality that the Devil shows in the Bible is when he destroys the life of an innocent man, Job. Are you imagining the Devil as some kind of rebellious anti-hero? That’s not the Bible, maybe you’re thinking of Paradise Lost or Demon: the Fallen.

O, Oh this hurts. This is just too funny. Let me guess. You think the snake in the garden is the devil too? Or that Raqia in herbrew or Firmament in English means sky? Unholy shit what Christians know about their own holy book could fit in a thimble. Let's talk about "The Satan" heavenly prosecutor and member of the sons of god (bene elohim).

Now lets start here. First you have to throw out everything you know of 'The Devil'/'The Satan'/'Lucifer' because most of it comes from Jubilees which means unless you are Ethiopian Orthodox or Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jew) it's pseudepigraphe and non-canonical. Now if you want to accept it that is great but be aware it will cause all kinds of theological problems for you.

Has'satan was a member of the Heavenly Court. His primary role however is to test the faith humans. Now lets look at the story shall we

And there was a day and when came the bene ha Elohim to present themselves before Yahweh, came indeed Has'satan among them and spoke Yahweh to Has'satan "From where do you come?"
So replying Has'satan spoke to Yahweh "From going to and fro on land going up and down on it."
Spoke Yahweh to Has'satan "Consider you upon my servant Job, (there is) certainly none like him on land, a man blameless and upright, one who fears Elohim and shuns the bad.
Responding Has'satan to Yahweh spoke "Out of favor fears Job Elohim. Have not you fenced around him and around his dwelling and around all that he has, in a circuit the labor of his hands. You blessed and his cattle increased on the land. But send now your hand and touch all that he has, and no to your face be accursed."
And spoke Yahweh to Has'satan "See all which he has in your hand, only toward him not be sent a hand. So went forward Has'satan from the face of Yahweh.

What an absolutely beautiful story isn't it?

In case you missed it let me point it out to you. Has'satan which is better translated The Prosecutor (an official title not a name much as Anointed (messiah) is a title not a name) is the hand sent forth from Yahweh. Remember what kind of people we are talking about and the way their society functioned. "But send now your hand" this has a very specific connotation within societies of that era. The hand of the ruler was not the actual physical hand but an office holder who carried out the will of the ruler. This son of god prosecutor and hand of god asks to be sent out to carry out terrible deeds to test the faith of Job. But I think you have still missed the real kicker of the story. "See all which he has in your hands" So Yahweh gives everything that belongs to Job over to the prosecutor. Okay good I got that part of the story. But check this next part out "only not toward him not be sent a hand."

so let me get this story correct. The mafia don brags about how this Jimmy fears him. The enforcer is like "No he is humoring you. I mean look you've made him off limits. He just pretends to fear the family. You placed all kinds of restrictions on how he has to be treated. Whenever he opens his sandwich shop you dump loads of money on it. But man I am telling you. Withdraw your restriction and your favors and he will spit in your face.". And the Don of course being the idiot that he is, is all like "Go in and fuck up his shit as much as you want. But don't harm a hair on his head." and you know how the story ends? With the don going "Dude! Ya I told him to fuck up your shit. who are you to question me? . Sorry about having all your stores burned down and your wife and children murdered. You know what. Here is a new wife and I will pay for her fertility treatment so you can have some new kids too. And o'ya here are 50 shops to replace the ones I had destroyed. Now love me and fear me or I will have my enforcer here break your fucking knee caps."

Are you fucking kidding me? This... This is your big "the devil is a bad guy" story. Okay I have one better for you. Mad dictator rewards a guy for offering his daughters up to be gang raped rather than have his men waste the effort it would take to helicopter out. Mad dictator nukes the entire city except the guy who offered his daughters up for gang rape. He and his family get to escape. Oh the wife was also shot in the head for looking back at the home she would never see again before it blew up. This same mad dictator also murdered the first born of an entire nation because the leader of that nation (who tried changing his mind) was brainwashed into not doing what the mad dictator claimed he didn't want him to do. All so the mad dictator could flex. Ya and lets not forget that little genocide in which the mad dictator rounded up 1 dude and his family (I think his name was Noah *sarcasm) shoved him into unlivable bunker, murdered everyone else alive including infants and children in a brutal fashion. For the final kicker the mad dictators son who is equally insane is also the ruler of a torture pit which makes anything in the last 3000 years look like child's play.

But ya. The devil is so much worse. I mean he... he... that's right he took the dictators son on top of mount Everest where somehow he was able to see the whole world and tempted him. But sure. You go on believing that the devil is far worse.

 

[ShieldWife]

I’m an atheist you moron.

Edit:

Okay, let me add a bit to that. I never said that Satan was the villain. I said that he was barely in the Bible and that the most personality he shows is when he screws with Job. You said that God was an evil dictator and that Satan was the hero. Then to refute me, you say how Satan is actually working for God, which if you claim that God is evil and the villain of the story I don't see how that supports your assertion that Satan is the hero.

You're just trying to be an edge lord by insulting God and saying that Satan is the hero, probably imagining that you're making all of the Christians' head explode here. You're not shocking anybody, it's just silly faux rebelliousness.

 

[Zachowon]

@Lord Invictus hey buddy, this is the sorta thing you are good at arguing, since you are a very prevalent Christian on this forum.